Tassie wants more North

[15hodge]

Reports are circulating this morning about two key Tasmanian tourism chiefs wanting as many as 4 home games a year in Hobart. This would deny mainland North members more Melbourne home games, where the vast majority of it's membership resides.

They also want to attach conditions that GWS and Gold Coast not play as part of those 4 games. Obviously they are not good enough for Tasmania.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/143282/default.aspx

What's your problem with this?

The folks in Hobart are using the Hawthorn / Launceston model that has proven to be a successful and profitable partnership. Why wouldn't Hobart / North Melbourne use that model?

They have even identified a weakness in the model, namely the AFL rarely sending Victorian based teams to Launceston. No doubt the majority of folks in Tassie would support a Victorian based team already, born from the days of the VFL, yet they get shafted with a stream of non-Vic clubs playing Hawthorn down there.

As for home-games, the club could insist on a replacement game system like Hawthorn. While that has been a contentious issue for some Hawk supporters, the sponsorship dollars ensure financial stability, an opportunity that North Melbourne can not afford to ignore.

Tassie govt pays (and reaps tourism dollars), North gets financial stability in the short term (and can change the conditions or pull out in the long term), and Tassie fans get better quality games.

What's your problem with this?

 

[the big lebowski]

What's your problem with this?

The folks in Hobart are using the Hawthorn / Launceston model that has proven to be a successful and profitable partnership. Why wouldn't Hobart / North Melbourne use that model?

They have even identified a weakness in the model, namely the AFL rarely sending Victorian based teams to Launceston. No doubt the majority of folks in Tassie would support a Victorian based team already, born from the days of the VFL, yet they get shafted with a stream of non-Vic clubs playing Hawthorn down there.

As for home-games, the club could insist on a replacement game system like Hawthorn. While that has been a contentious issue for some Hawk supporters, the sponsorship dollars ensure financial stability, an opportunity that North Melbourne can not afford to ignore.

Tassie govt pays (and reaps tourism dollars), North gets financial stability in the short term (and can change the conditions or pull out in the long term), and Tassie fans get better quality games.

What's your problem with this?

The only problem with your sensible summation of the state of play is it does not include north folding, re locating, merging or the like. Haven't you heard, victoria can't sustain 10 clubs?

 

[Mr Meeseeks]

Tasmania - Get your filthy little paws out of our football clubs

If you leave a penniless man on your doorstep for long enough without giving him jack, eventually he is going to start to try and sneak into your house looking for scraps.

Give tassie their own team and they will back off Hawthorn and North, until then enjoy the truckloads of cash our club gets from the deal.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

Reports are circulating this morning about two key Tasmanian tourism chiefs wanting as many as 4 home games a year in Hobart. This would deny mainland North members more Melbourne home games, where the vast majority of it's membership resides.

They also want to attach conditions that GWS and Gold Coast not play as part of those 4 games. Obviously they are not good enough for Tasmania.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/newsarticle/tabid/208/newsid/143282/default.aspx

Why wouldn't they ask for more games against popular teams?

Tassie has proved to be a successful venue for hosting AFL and is financially rewarding those who play down there (hence why North Melbourne sort the deal).

They got screwed royally by the AFL which vested its interests in weak principles of economic growth at the expense of servicing a heartland of the game. Will be interesting to look back retrospectively when Gold Coast go the way of the failed attempts at NRL, Soccer and basketball. At least Tasmania presents a sustainable football option - show me some evidence that GWS or GC are anywhere near that, by the AFL's own admission they have underestimated the efforts required to establish new teams.

 

[15hodge]

The only problem with your sensible summation of the state of play is it does not include north folding, re locating, merging or the like. Haven't you heard, victoria can't sustain 10 clubs?

Thanks tbl.

However, the assertion that Victoria can't sustain 10 clubs seems counter intuitive. The Victorian football following public are the biggest cash cow for the AFL. Without gate receipts, club memberships, proportion of tv rights value etc provided by the Victorian public, the AFL would not survive.

 

[Gaz_Brownlow]

Tasmania - Get your filthy little paws out of our football clubs

Would only be too happy to so you could remove the Tasmania emblazoned on the front of your jumper and the tax payer funded cash you have overflowing from your pockets you filthy piece of ungrateful, disrespectful almost broke and merged with melbourne until you sort assistance from Tassie, Kennet loving streaky brown turd.....

Or something like that.

 

[fairdinkum]

These are excerpts from a post I made on the Fitzroy board a few months ago:

Jeff Kennett may well go down as a man who helped save North Melbourne (even though that was likely not even a small consideration in his actions). A cursory look at the HFC's fixture this season indicates just how pissed off the AFL were with Kennett's brilliant ploy to scuttle their own plans in Tasmania. Why are the AFL so pissed off? This is where, I concede, my theory moves from deduction to inference, but I do not believe it is an implausible inference at all: the AFL wanted to ship north off to Tasmania. And this time, they were going to employ the very 'split home games' tactic they passed on when it was presented to them on a platter in 2007. They had learnt their lesson...

The AFL learned in the 90s that you don't simply and suddenly declare a club finished, it is a bad look for the League and not enough supporters cross over to the new entity. You need to build public support and make it seem like the club will be better off for the move.

The AFL learned in the 00s that you don't push for an immediate, complete 'relocation' (even if you have garnered public support), you slowly up the number of away 'home' games like the frog in the boiling pot. Jeff Kennett stole some of their firewood (and HFC will pay for that for a long time) but they still got us in the pot. We need to make sure we get out of it before the Hawthorn Launceston deal expires because the AFL will be back with more firewood, I am certain of it.

---

I stand by every bit of that post. It frustrates me when I hear and read the comments of some fellow North supporters who seem to think that the war is over. It isn't. It might never be. In 2007 we won a battle but the AFL is an adversary which only grows stronger over time and will never surrender.

That said, it amuses me that gogriff started this thread. IMO the medium-term futures of Footscray (and to a lesser extent St Kilda) are no more secure than that of North.

 

[greennick]

How do North fans feel about it already costing you 4 points this year?

 

[Tas]

How do North fans feel about it already costing you 4 points this year?

Need to be good enough to win anywhere. Eagles have the wood on us of late, have beaten us at home. I don't think the venue was a contributing factor, we pulled the Eagles pants down in the first half, just didn't handle the second half very well.

 

[Cmarsh]

Why wouldn't they ask for more games against popular teams?

Tassie has proved to be a successful venue for hosting AFL and is financially rewarding those who play down there (hence why North Melbourne sort the deal).

They got screwed royally by the AFL which vested its interests in weak principles of economic growth at the expense of servicing a heartland of the game. Will be interesting to look back retrospectively when Gold Coast go the way of the failed attempts at NRL, Soccer and basketball. At least Tasmania presents a sustainable football option - show me some evidence that GWS or GC are anywhere near that, by the AFL's own admission they have underestimated the efforts required to establish new teams.

Where was the evidence in 1982 that Sth Melbourne were going to be successful by moving to Sydney? There were not at that time too many that were positive about it. Nowdays, is anyone in their right mind advocating a return to Lake oval?

Therefore, it is very assuming of you to suppose GC and GWS are going to fail. These locations offer alot more potential for growth than a Tasmanian side ever will.

 

[Tas]

That said, it amuses me that gogriff started this thread. IMO the medium-term futures of Footscray (and to a lesser extent St Kilda) are no more secure than that of North.

We aren't the only club to play games outside of Melbourne, I think the Saints squandered an opportunity to develop a market in Tasmania and chose to get out due to the club being within a premiership window.

That being said, our club needs to be careful about expanding into a market that is next cab off the rank to getting a team. While I am glad Hobart is a success already and some people there want more games, it is a bit dangerous to over-commit to a region that is well known for putting political pressure on the AFL for representation.

I think Tasmanian's deserve their own team, not a relocated one and not two teams playing games there that don't warrant more consideration in Melbourne. Anything more than what we do now just threatens us to lose development time and resources when the eventual Tasmanian club takes over. If Tasmania was never to have their own side then I would be more open to increasing our commitment there.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Why are people saying we will relocate to Tasmania? That's not going to happen!
We have a great arrangement with Hobart, but North is a Melbourne team.
Our games down there helps the struggling Tasmanian economy during the winter months.
North makes a nice profit on games it would lose money on with the Etihad Stadium deal.
Membership increase is huge as well, nearly 4000 Tas members already.
I can see it ending up as successful as the Hawks in Launceston.

this notion that Tassie makes heaps of money out of AFL is such a misnoma. yes, about 5 years ago they studied the economic impact of hawthorn games in Launceston and it was found to be beneficial to local businesses - but the tax payer receives no return for the investment.

i'm particularly troubled by the Tassie Government funneling money through TT-line to sponsor the Roos games. TT-line has been losing money for years, but is pretty crucial to Tasmania. putting it under more financial strain is not good for the state.

So if Tassie AFL followers already have their own existing club they support, what is the likelihood that in a small place like Tassie with virtually no population growth could muster enough support for its own side to be long term self-sustaining? And to think that 2 Melbourne clubs would have to die for it to happen? No thanks!

the likelihood of adults giving up long held allegiances is small. but a lot of tasmanians will still go to watch top quality AFL - this was proved by the early years of Hawthorn and St Kilda (to a lesser extent because of their Tassie connections) and the attendances that they got in Launceston.

additionally, to visit Launceston now is to know that Hawthorn have done a friggen amazing job marketing to kids. every bit of 40-50% of the kids in Launceston go for Hawthorn after their 11 years in Tassie, and that bodes tremendously well for the Hawks.

i don't understand why 2 melbourne sides would have to die to make a Tassie team happen - if North and Hawthorn can't survive without Tassie (which Hawthorn definitely can), then they shouldn't be in the competition, and Tassie should be.

--------------

Finally, this notion that the Tassie Government should withdraw funding for it's own team will never happen. The notion that the Kangaroos will move permanently won't happen in the forseeable future.

people forget that only about 2 years ago the AFL tried to broker the 5-year, $70m dollar, 7 game a year deal that would've been a partial relocation. Kangaroos fans hated it, the board at North were only on board cos the AFL were holding a gun to their heads, and the Tasmanian Government wouldn't have a bar of it.

a relocation might happen one day, but i doubt it'll be north.


also, what's with the title? "tassie wants it their own way - again."

again? when has Tassie EVER gotten its way when it comes to AFL football? It doesn't have a team when it should've. it spent money on a submission to the AFL for the 18th spot that the AFL didn't even read. vlad has said never ever while he's in charge. it gets perennially crap games when Kennet spent at least 5 years advocating for a rotation system of Tassie games so the Melbourne teams occasionally played their and Launceston wasn't repeatedly ripped off and screwed over with Fremantle, Port Adelaide and now Gold Coast and GWS. (which is the reason that they now want this in writing from the AFL - cos they agreed to it when Kennett mentioned it, and it never happened.)

Tassie NEVER gets its own way when it comes to AFL

 

[tazaa]

IF they stump up the cash it’ll happen.

Make no mistake – long term the Roos are going to Tassie. The AFL have showed their hand on this.

Thankyou for your insight.

 

[tazaa]

Maybe you won't relocate to Tassie, but you (along with others) can't survive in Melbourne long term.

Can i have tonights lotto numbers?

 

[tazaa]

Two reasons.

1) The AFL want it to happen in most peoples opinions, so they will do what they can over time to "encourage" a gradual move

2) If you start playing 4-6 games in Hobart, have 10k+ members down there, a massive chunk of your gate revenue, corporate sponsorship, and even membership (maybe 1/3) will be from Tassie. If your melbourne growth stagnates, the importance of these resources will only grow, esp as their upside for you (purely financially) is great in terms of the growth potential.

LOL.. what if the sun doesnt rise tomorrow?

 

[AM]

Don't see a problem Relocate Hawthorn. Job done.

 

[tazaa]

Can afford to live on there own Nth can not. Nth is going to have a tough choice when the new TV rights deal comes in.

really? do go on

 

[tazaa]

They do;

"We play four games a year over four years in Tasmania and that will generate close to $20mil in direct income to the club."

With those kind of dollars, they have a ton of leverage - and that doesn't take into account the money they spend on Hawthorn.

They should tell both Clubs thanks for your support, but we will not be contributed financially in the future.

Might take a few years, but they'd get their own team.


As for North, if they played their Home games in Tasmania, and played 80% of their 'Away' games in Melbourne, would it even matter?

probably not for u

 

[tazaa]

Believe Grimace as the new team mascot was the tipping point for some members of the board.

NO! surely it wasnt Grimace!

 

[Rioli magic]

Can i have tonights lotto numbers?

7, 3, 2, 5, 4, 8, 9 - work it out.

 

[rainman06]

Wait, what do Hawthorn want their own way?

 

[fairdinkum]

We aren't the only club to play games outside of Melbourne, I think the Saints squandered an opportunity to develop a market in Tasmania and chose to get out due to the club being within a premiership window.

Is that why they got out of Tassie, or are you just making that up?

That being said, our club needs to be careful about expanding into a market that is next cab off the rank to getting a team. While I am glad Hobart is a success already and some people there want more games, it is a bit dangerous to over-commit to a region that is well known for putting political pressure on the AFL for representation.

I agree with you that it is dangerous.

Here is a hypothetical scenario to consider:

North signs up for four matches per season at Bellerive until the end of 2015 as an extension on the current deal. The revenues derived from the venture (match-day payments, increased membership, etc) see club revenues increase markedly and overall profitabilty increases as a result. The AFL declares that the club no longer needs ASD funding (and the AFL must now redirect this money to 'grass-roots football') and cuts this off however the club remains profitable (but only with the help of the Hobart cash).

Suddenly in 2015 the AFL announce that a full-time Tasmanian side is required by the start of the new broadcasting deal and that 'it was always the plan to have a permanent side in Tasmania by 2017'. The Tasmanian government makes no offer to the Hawthorn Football Club to renew their deal which is slated to end at the conclusion of the 2015 season and directs its proposed funding to this new full-time Tasmanian side. The Hobart consortium do likewise and make no new offer for a part-time presence for North.

NMFC struggles to find any sort of replacement in its forward projections for the money now lost from Hobart. Certain minions in the MSM note that if North intend to play 11 home matches in Melbourne in 2016, at least five of them will be loss-making as they must all be played at Etihad, which only compounds the problems caused by the loss of Hobart revenue.

The AFL then makes a '$100M relocation offer' to North to become that new full-time Tasmanian team 'they always said was on the horizon'.

Any of this seem eerily familiar?

If Tasmania was never to have their own side then I would be more open to increasing our commitment there.

If I knew for certain fact that Tasmania would never get its own club then I would fully support North playing up to four or five matches in Hobart (at least until this bullshit Etihad situation has been sorted out). As it stands, I maintain the same position I have been repeating since 2007: we are and have been since I was a young lad in the AFL's sights.

 

[Tas]

this notion that Tassie makes heaps of money out of AFL is such a misnoma. yes, about 5 years ago they studied the economic impact of hawthorn games in Launceston and it was found to be beneficial to local businesses - but the tax payer receives no return for the investment.

There was an independent valuation done by a professional consultant for the AFL which outlined the direct and indirect benefits to all parties. The Tasmanian government was sceptical about the numbers and wanted a three year 'trial' to see how it went.

Businesses pay tax, they employ people, who pay tax. It is a very complex economic process which no matter how simply people explain to the average person it doesn't sink in. Government makes money from a prospering economy. Tasmanian government is not flush for cash because the economy is not strong.

i'm particularly troubled by the Tassie Government funneling money through TT-line to sponsor the Roos games. TT-line has been losing money for years, but is pretty crucial to Tasmania. putting it under more financial strain is not good for the state.

Except it hasn't been losing money, not this year, not in recent history. Government don't make decisions for TT-line, it is an independent body and they said they made a commercial deal after receiving a submission.

the likelihood of adults giving up long held allegiances is small. but a lot of tasmanians will still go to watch top quality AFL - this was proved by the early years of Hawthorn and St Kilda (to a lesser extent because of their Tassie connections) and the attendances that they got in Launceston.

I don't think anyone is asking them to change allegiances.

additionally, to visit Launceston now is to know that Hawthorn have done a friggen amazing job marketing to kids. every bit of 40-50% of the kids in Launceston go for Hawthorn after their 11 years in Tassie, and that bodes tremendously well for the Hawks.

Hawks in Launceston has been a success, but that is largely on the basis of a significant government sponsorship and there isn't much flowing back to grass roots football from the money being made there. The Hobart agreement is radically different because it isn't just the government forking out money directly, the business community that gets the benefit in part pays for it and there is a significant flow back to Cricket Tasmania and AFL Tasmania.

i don't understand why 2 melbourne sides would have to die to make a Tassie team happen - if North and Hawthorn can't survive without Tassie (which Hawthorn definitely can), then they shouldn't be in the competition, and Tassie should be.

What makes Tasmania attractive is the clean stadium which suits smaller attendances, it is why Geelong is financially strong and why other clubs are forced to find alternatives in the short-term until Docklands moves into AFL hands.

Clubs here would not sell games if they could make the kind of money Geelong makes with their home games. Why does the AFL forge on with expansion rather than fix the infrastructure which their ground equalisation policy created? Fixing problems doesn't get you a fat bonus, increasing ratings and market share does.

Finally, this notion that the Tassie Government should withdraw funding for it's own team will never happen. The notion that the Kangaroos will move permanently won't happen in the forseeable future.

We wont be moving to Tasmania, the only group that have the power to do that is our members and I'd rather vote us to return to the VFL or VAFA than to go to Tasmania, we also have made long-term agreements with the government to remain here, it was the requirement for the funding we received on the facilities.

people forget that only about 2 years ago the AFL tried to broker the 5-year, $70m dollar, 7 game a year deal that would've been a partial relocation. Kangaroos fans hated it, the board at North were only on board cos the AFL were holding a gun to their heads, and the Tasmanian Government wouldn't have a bar of it.

It wont happen again, AFL wont hold a gun to anyone's head. If relocation comes it will be willing because the club will cease to function without a solution. If will likely happen sooner or late if costs keep ballooning out faster than new revenue streams can be acquired, we will only need a recession to be the catalyst.

a relocation might happen one day, but i doubt it'll be north.

Can never say never but the AFL's policy doesn't support the idea that there will be a relocation on the cards any time soon. However, the same problems which may lead to a failed team in Victoria will likely be the main reason why an AFL team will not be feasible, if the cost of running a football club rises to 50, 60 or 70m then it will become harder to establish a new team in small market.

Even with the deep pockets the AFL has and the amount of money it has been throwing into GWS and GC, even they are feeling the pinch and do not have the resources they would like to have. While an a club with financial issues may seem like dead weight, it is still a club that is turning over some 30m odd, if you try and do the numbers about making $50m from scratch it will be daunting for a new franchise.

 

[CAS79]

For those of us who dont know, what is Tassies financial state right at the minute.

Not as good as it was a few years ago but not anywhere near as bad as the 1991-1999 situation either.

 

[ManOfClay]

Then why us? GWS don't deserve to be in the comp, and in reality, Bulldogs have had far less success than us

******* turn it up. You have three more premierships than us. Big deal - Geelong has won three since 2007.

You have not had far more success than anyone.